Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reads joint statement on federal immigration operations; public urges immediate ban on use of city property by ICE/CBP
Summary
Council read a joint statement with Buncombe County expressing concern about border‑patrol activity and pointing people to legal resources; multiple speakers later urged council to adopt an immediate resolution barring ICE/CBP use of city property.
At the start of the Nov. 18 meeting council read a joint statement, prepared with Buncombe County, addressing community fear over anticipated U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) or ICE operations. The statement said local residents deserve to feel secure and that the Asheville Police Department and Buncombe County Sheriff’s Office do not participate in federal immigration enforcement; it directed people in need to legal assistance and urged peaceful public expression.
During general public comment later in the meeting, a string of speakers urged the council to move beyond the joint statement and sponsor a city resolution explicitly prohibiting the use of city property for civil immigration enforcement staging or operations. Speakers — including community leaders, attorneys and parents — framed the resolution as a protection of due‑process rights and community trust. They cited reports and video of aggressive CBP/ICE tactics elsewhere and said immigrant residents in Asheville already feel terrorized and afraid to attend work or access emergency services. Several speakers said passage of a municipal resolution would be a public statement, not merely symbolic, that city parks, lots and facilities will not be used as staging areas for civil immigration enforcement.
Council did not adopt such a resolution at the Nov. 18 meeting. Council members and staff said the joint statement had been issued that day; several council members invited co‑sponsorship and asked staff for legal guidance on whether an ordinance or resolution should be brought forward at a subsequent meeting. Public commenters pressed for immediate action and described the joint statement as insufficient without a binding local policy or resolution.
Speakers repeatedly urged the council to 'sponsor the resolution now,' saying leadership involves protecting the community rather than neutrality, and asked that council clarify staff direction to deny or refuse use of city property for civil immigration enforcement.
